This Mother's Day, no Wichita babies will die...

(Tim) Readers will recall there was a Wichita man sentenced to life imprisonment for first degree murder, recently. He'd shot and killed the so-called doctor who'd become infamous for making his living off murdering babies of viable age.

What the media conspired to keep from us is that Kansas state law protects those babies--even at this late date. Or rather, Kansas legislators had passed a law they intended to protect those babies. Trouble was, the state's judicial authorities refused to enforce that law.

You know, like all the old westerns where the cattle baron's hired guns are killing off the farmers until The Loner Who Loves Justice arrives. Seeing all the blood, reluctantly he takes up his gun one last time. With the coward wearing the sheriff's badge hiding behind his desk, The Loner goes to work killing the Baron's hired guns; then finally, the Baron himself.

Where was Clint when Wichita really needed him?

The Man of Justice who actually showed up wasn't Clint Eastwood or John Wayne. He was no heartthrob causing Wichita's beauties to swoon...

And now that the babies are safe again in their mothers' wombs, no one's doing a script hoping to interest Steven Spielberg. Nor did World magazine honor him with their Daniel of the Year Award.

Turns out America doesn't really care about the slaughter of little babies. But we most certainly do care about the man who puts a stop to it.

So Scott Roeder is all alone, now, sitting in his prison cell while all the godly Christian leaders and pro-life hacks hiss and gnash their teeth at him. They think he gives them a bad name.

On this day before Mother's Day, let us each take a moment to remember Christ's little ones being slaughtered all around us and pray for judges and justices and policemen and Child Protective Services bureaucrats and doctors and soldiers who will do what they should to protect the least of these.

And to help us think and remember, here's a good satire by Charles G. Mills.

* * *

Terminating Human Abortion Instrumentalities


by Charles G. Mills

Recently a man in Kansas City was sentenced to life in prison for terminating a human abortion instrumentality. I do not approve of terminating human abortion instrumentalities and would never do it. My objections are moral and spiritual. I do not, however, want to impose my religion on those who disagree with me.

The anti-selection press has referred to this man as a killer of a doctor and as a murderer of a doctor. Such extreme rhetoric does not help. It prevents both those who support and those who oppose freedom of selection from working together toward moderate solutions. Such solutions might include a legislative prohibition against terminating human abortion instrumentalities over the age of 90 years, or prohibiting burning human abortion instrumentalities alive.

One must start by realizing that the decision to terminate a human abortion instrumentality is a deeply personal one and a difficult one.  Nobody makes such a decision lightly, and no one enjoys terminating any human instrumentality. The government should not be involved in such a personal decision. It should be strictly between the terminator and his spiritual advisor.

Our present sweeping laws against terminating human abortion instrumentalities force this activity to be taken illegally in back alleys where it cannot be regulated. If it were legal, there could be requirements that it be carried out as painlessly and efficiently as possible. This could be done by requiring marksmanship training before undertaking a termination. There could also be requirements as to the type of rifle used. Under present law, a person could terminate a human abortion instrumentality with a shot that would leave the instrumentality lingering for days before its death. Termination could even be carried out with such primitive means as bows and arrows, spears, swords, or battle axes.

Our present laws also discriminate against the poor. The rich can always buy a first-class ticket on a flight to some Islamic country where it is legal to stone or behead human abortion instrumentalities. The poor have no such options.

Our present laws also breach the Constitutional Wall of Separation between church and state. The prohibition against terminating human abortion instrumentalities is rooted entirely in an interpretation of Judeo-Christian morality, particularly of the commandment given to Moses against murder. Even if a majority of the country thinks terminating human abortion instrumentalities is murder and that murder should be illegal, we cannot determine questions of Constitutional law by a majority vote.  Certainly those who select to terminate a human abortion instrumentality do not think themselves guilty of murder. To impose our views on them constitutes the establishment of a state religion.

Extremists have made our laws on this subject for too long. Moderate people on both sides of the issue should work together to end back-alley termination of human abortion instrumentalities now and establish a system of regulated, sanitary, painless terminations of human abortion instrumentalities for those who truly, if regrettably, need to take that course of action.


Read On-line at

The Confederate Lawyer is copyright (c) 2010 by Charles Mills and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, All rights reserved. This column may be forward or reprinted if attribution is given to the author and


Psalm 139 ...

13 For You formed my inward parts;

You covered me in my mother’s womb.

14 I will praise You,

for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

Marvelous are Your works,

And that my soul knows very well.

15 My frame was not hidden from You,

When I was made in secret,

And skillfully wrought

in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Your eyes saw my substance,

being yet unformed.

And in Your book they all were written,

The days fashioned for me,

When as yet there were none of them.

17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!

How great is the sum of them!

18 If I should count them,

they would be more in number than the sand;

When I awake, I am still with You.

19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!

Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.

20 For they speak against You wickedly;

Your enemies take Your name in vain.

21 Do I not hate them, O LORD, who hate You?

And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?

22 I hate them with perfect hatred;

I count them my enemies.

Just so I'm clear on this, am I supposed to think that Scott Roeder is a hero, according to this post? That's what I'm getting.

>>am I supposed to think that Scott Roeder is a hero, according to this post?

Absolutely not. If he were a hero, "World" would have named Roeder their Daniel of the Year and the New Yorker would have a profile in the works. Everyone knows a true hero when they see one.

You've answered my request for clarity with another ironic statement. A straightforward answer is what I'm requesting. Do you think Scott Roeder is a hero?

As best I can tell, there's not a single individual in our large nation who approves of what Scott Roeder did. How in the world could he be a hero?

But if you want to defend him, be my guest.

I haven't stated a position one way or the other. I'm simply trying to understand your post. You've accused Tim Keller of evading direct answers enough of late, so can you please give me an answer? Saying "no one does" in light of a post that seems to be implying that you do condone Mr. Roeder's actions doesn't state your position. Do you salute Mr. Roeder, or do you think his actions are deplorable? Your answer would look something like: "I (do/do not) think Mr. Roeder committed an act that is morally appropriate, and one that should be emulated."

All I'm asking for is the clarity you ask of others.

>>You've accused Tim Keller of evading direct answers...

I'm guessing this is an area where Tim Keller would be quite straightforward.

That would be my guess as well.

However, you still haven't answered the question. This is looking increasingly like hypocrisy.

If you stand on your convictions, why can't you just answer the question? I don't understand.

>>I don't understand.

Dear Dave,

I don't mean to be rude, but that's all I wrote (or will write, for now).

Sorry to disappoint you,

Fair enough. I hope you'll extend the same grace to Tim Keller in the future.

Tim..Dave is right. Why do you condemn Tim Keller for waffling on the question: is homosexuality a sin? (which he did say 'yes'). You're doing the same thing. Why don't you just answer the question plainly and if you get locked in jail for preaching the 'truth' be it. Why don't you stand up for the gospel?

>> Why don't you just answer the question

It's like Dave said: I'm a hypocrite. But it's so embarrassing to have astute men like you pointing it out, publicly. Cut me some slack, would you?

I find it so much more affirming, personally, as well as Gospel-centered to preach against narcissism.


> no one's doing a script hoping to interest Steven Spielberg.

If so, it'd be about Tiller the martyr killed by a terrorist.

By the way, who is better: Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Scott Roeder? Is Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in the view of Tim Keller and you fellows, as clearly contravening Biblical commands as the drag queen in Times Square?

I, for one, am very thankful that George Tiller was no longer alive on June 21 of last year. Mr. Tiller was murdered just 3 weeks before a woman in Wichita discovered that she was pregnant. She had "less than ideal" circumstances in her life and strongly considered aborting this child though she was already 7 months into the pregnancy. (How did she not know she was pregnant? I have no idea. Besides, that's not the point.) Through an amazing series of events, God matched her with my husband and me, the adoptive parents of the beautiful little boy she delivered later that summer. He is precious beyond words, and we are so thankful that his life was spared from the murderous hands of George Tiller.

Add new comment